It doesn't have extended attributes that work, so I can't mount it. That's leaving aside all the complaints that its linux implementation isn't the most stable piece of code in the world (I've never tried it, but that's what I've been told).

You didn't got it, only journalisation will be on the stick an data will be on my hard disk :

You're right, I didn't get it. And still I don't get it. What sense does it make to put only a journal on usb? It may slow down the transactions; also, I wouldn't rate the reliability of my usb stick higher than my western digital hda..
Of course, men want to play In that way, I understand very well. It makes you do things just because you can do it. So go on.

It doesn't have extended attributes that work, so I can't mount it. That's leaving aside all the complaints that its linux implementation isn't the most stable piece of code in the world (I've never tried it, but that's what I've been told).

AS I know JFS has Extended Attributes support since 2002/2003 Year .
It has also Posix ACL support and Security Labels support.

JFS CHANGELOG wrote:

Drop 63 on November 20, 2002 (jfs-2.4-1.1.0.tar.gz and jfsutils-1.1.0.tar.gz) includes fixes to the file system and utilities. Extended attributes and ACLs patches have been updated also.

Maedhros wrote:

What's broken in JFS?

the current linux kernel driver code is much improvement than the old problematic one from "the opinions from the past" .

cheers _________________ "Time is a companion that goes with us on a journey. It reminds us to cherish each moment, because it will never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we have lived" J-L. Picard

You didn't got it, only journalisation will be on the stick an data will be on my hard disk :

You're right, I didn't get it. And still I don't get it. What sense does it make to put only a journal on usb? It may slow down the transactions; also, I wouldn't rate the reliability of my usb stick higher than my western digital hda..
Of course, men want to play In that way, I understand very well. It makes you do things just because you can do it. So go on.

Sebastian

Oh no, with usb 2.0 allows you to write as fast as on an hard drive (journalisation doesn't stay in cache disk) so the goal would be to reduce disk seeks as said in the man and so should improve system's speed. /me believe that this should be great! and I'm not really afraid of keys reliability...

My choice of fs is reiser 3.6. I am desktop user, most of the files I work with are small, so performance with lots of small files matters and reiser 3.6 is good at this.

That said, I find the poll results rather surprising. I am surprised so many people want to switch to reiser 4, with the benchmarks showing it is sometimes slower than v3 and someone reporting an fs crash every now and then.

JFS has one more specyfic thing . with JFS hard disc is working _very_ silent. this is strange in some aspect , but that is . My tests HD seemed to working very loud with ext3/reiser* , with JFS it is _really_ very quiet

performance of fs isnt all . in most of cases benefit in performance is occupied by a interactivity lost.

cheers._________________ "Time is a companion that goes with us on a journey. It reminds us to cherish each moment, because it will never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we have lived" J-L. Picard

Joined: 15 Dec 2004Posts: 1807Location: The University of Maryland at College Park

Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:44 pm Post subject:

Here is the thing, I'm going to be hosting some big files in the near future and expect a lot of hard drive activity. I had planned on using XFS, because it handles big files well, however if JFS does alot of caching in memory, that would be good as well, since I'm really trying to save my hardisk here . Can somebody give me some kind of quantitative explanation of JFS's memory caching features, and is it customizable?_________________"That question was less stupid; though you asked it in a profoundly stupid way."
I'm the brains behind Jackass! | Tutorials: Shorewall

however if JFS does alot of caching in memory, that would be good as well, since I'm really trying to save my hardisk here

Caching means that the fs will hold data in the RAM for a long time before sync-ing to the disk. It means that if power fails, all non-synced data will be lost. It does NOT mean data will take any less or more space.

Quote:

Can somebody give me some kind of quantitative explanation of JFS's memory caching features, and is it customizable?

HEY ! THAT WAS A GUESS, MAN ! Don't take it for a fact, if you are going to make decisions

my priors are : good _overall_ performance and _good_interactivity . both this not have to be best because this is not real. so I want to find a balance beetwen this 2 things for my 1.0GHz box.

Im not using many of big files also , and Im not doing many of cdr burnings.

I want to have good interactivity of the rest system during using FS , so potential choices for me are ext3 and jfs or reiser3. With reiser3 Im noticed an interactivity lost. Im testing now full ext3 and full jfs systems.
I like to have fun with the kernels so copying kernel-sources is important to me.

my final choice will be ext3 or JFS for "/" and propably reiser3 for /usr/src and /usr/portage maybe.

Sith_Happens wrote:

explanation of JFS's memory caching features, and is it customizable?

as I know long caching and high memory usage is a domain of xfs and reiser4 mostly now

cheers _________________ "Time is a companion that goes with us on a journey. It reminds us to cherish each moment, because it will never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we have lived" J-L. Picard

There is no need to manually run fsck on ANY journalled fs. You can run it manually if you are tracing a problem and want to pass weird options, but apart from that, an 'fsck' is done automatically by the fs code upon mount, wether you want it or not.

for one thing i have _NEVER_ done fsck on my reiser4......i am thinking of
moving to jfs/xfs though......for large files xfs is better?

if You are interested in large files/multimedia files IMHO the choice will be xfs or ext2.
You always can put just large files on XFS for ex, and the rest of system having on other fs

cheers._________________ "Time is a companion that goes with us on a journey. It reminds us to cherish each moment, because it will never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we have lived" J-L. Picard

After reiserfs 3.6 pissed me off by corrupting my system partition I switched to jfs. Never encountered any problems with it until now, it even safely recovered from a couple of brute shutdowns. Seems a rather satisfying alternative. I recently upped the RAM to 1Gb so I'm thinking about putting a test xfs partition up for my backups but my main system will stay with jfs until proven wrong ._________________Momo_CCCP

The only way to be completely safe from fs-crash is by not using a computer
Search the forums, and you will find horror stories about ALL filesystems ( ext3,r3,r4,jfs,xfs included ). So if you'll be storing any ICBM launch codes, make a backup on a different fs on different hardware.

The only way to be completely safe from fs-crash is by not using a computer
Search the forums, and you will find horror stories about ALL filesystems ( ext3,r3,r4,jfs,xfs included ). So if you'll be storing any ICBM launch codes, make a backup on a different fs on different hardware.

amen.

I'm getting tired of seeing every filesystem being bashed over this... THERE IS NO SAFE FILESYSTEM. really, all have problems. reiserfs3 served me well, but failed twice, too. used ext3 for a short time, massive dataloss. bad luck? very likely, I think. Don't choose a filesystem cuz some people say its safe. no filesystem is really safe. of course, reiser4 is risky, as it is new. and reiserfs3 is the oldest journaling filesystem for linux, and has only seen bugfixes for a long time, so I consider it very good. as is ext3, as this is based on ex2 - old, reliable, and proven. XFS and JFS have been tested on other operatingsystems, so I guess they are very safe too. so? just pick one... I don't think there is very much difference in performance between them, but I think you can say this safely:

XFS is best for big files
reiserfs3 is best for lots of small files (source, portage, /etc, /home - supposed you keep your movies on a seperate xfs disk, as I do). also nice for /
JFS on old hardware - less cpu usage
ext3 if you don't want several filesystems on your computer, and I think good for /.

reiser4 is cool for portage, but don't keep important data on it, yet. It's nice to experiment with it, as I THINK it has the potential to kick some reall ass

(You did reboot or otherwise clear the filecache between tests, right?)

Thanks a lot for the numbers. For JFS's and XFS's low performance and CPU utilization during the file create/remove tests, the explanation is right below: incredibly high latency.

Are you sure you read the table correctly? In fact both reiser fs have horrible latency and except in one case, xfs is at least second best all the times int the first test. Or did I misread anything? (Or were you just refering to the one case where xfs loses?) In second test (enterprise thin) things look a bit different.

I've used reiserfs on 3 distros on both a laptop and my desktop, 20GB partition on one and 50GB on the other, and I've never had a problem. Moved plenty of large files around. I'm starting to get drive seek errors now and then on the laptop, but I think that's the drive failing, not the fs.